"Speed is the essence of war. Take advantage of the enemy's unpreparedness; travel by unexpected routes and strike him where he has taken no precautions." Sun Tzu, Art of War

It was January 2007 when Apple [AAPL] went to war. The original iPhone wasn't just the world's first thin client Mac, it was then the company began to define the future of mass market mobile computing. It was when it swore to fight tooth and claw to dominate the vision.

[ABOVE:No more Mr. Nice Guy.]

World iWar

Today, you have Apple involved in an increasingly bitter global dispute with Samsung, litigation against HTC and Motorola, Kodak, the lousy Lodsys lawsuit and more. Apple is also taking on the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) over essential patents for apps.

Apple is prepared to litigate to defend its position. That's in addition to its other battlefronts, for example: user interface excellence, world-class design, simplicity and self-expression.

Apple is attempting to retain control over patents which handle how mobile applications request sensitive information, such as contact, diary or other personal data. In order to do this it has had to refuse to provide a royalty-free license for two patents which are core components to the W3C's Widget Access Request Policy, a specification closely tied to HTML5.

Cupertino's refusal to allow royalty-free licenses to its '007 and '77 patents has driven the W3C to seek out 'prior art' with which to invalidate Apple's patents. Or find another way in the event a case to invalidate cannot be found.

Once more history repeats itself: the once dominant closed computer platform watches its market share disintegrate in the face of an open platform and decides to sue everyone in sight.

It didn't save Apple in 1985 and it won't save Apple now. Even if there was merit to Apple's various cases (as before, there probably isn't) the legal system will render verdicts years after the marketplace does.

6
posted on 07/12/2011 11:12:28 AM PDT
by FredZarguna
(And, why would anyone be interested in developing with a 1990's toolchain anyway?)

It’s the liberal way. Use the courts to shutdown your competition when you can’t dominate by having the best product. Some folks don’t want an Apple product. It may be price, features or objection to supporting a company that finances leftists causes.

I know you are being sarcastic but I’ve had an iPad for about 6 months, it is pretty good as a ebook reader but I alway set it aside and used the laptop if I wanted to do more.

I bought an Asus Transformer last week. It is great. I can use the tab for reading then attach the keyboard when I want to type. 2 USB ports, SD and micro SD slots, 16 hour battery life, tabbed multitasking, Google Maps with a very good GPS, I actually use it instead of the laptop most of the time now.

Whether or not you agree with the strategy, that's a ridiculous comparison. Apple is attempting to protect its own research and development, something that Righthaven couldn't even dream of ever doing. You know, producing something other than legal documents.

Now, we could have an interesting discussion on patents in general, but not if it's going to start with cheap, inaccurate, and irrelevant ad hominem attacks.

Besides, the so-called Righthaven model originated in the tech world in the first place, by SCO (note: not the original SCO, but a patent troll outfit using that name). They failed, just as Righthaven did.

16
posted on 07/12/2011 12:54:40 PM PDT
by kevkrom
(Imagine if the media spent 1/10 the effort vetting Obama as they've used against Palin.)

The “clone war” of the ‘80s or ‘90s worked out by IBM, creator and definer of the standard, being utterly crushed by the competition after giving them the keys to the kingdom. The kingdom is now dominated by a symbiotic competitor, who struggles to keep the squatting rabble under some semblance of control in a decades-stagnating ecosystem.

I bought an original IBM PC. It came with complete electronic schematics and complete BIOS source code listing. Small wonder IBM lost all control.

Use the courts to shutdown your competition when you cant dominate by having the best product.

In case you haven't noticed, Apple is dominating by having the best product in its market. Nobody sells more high-end cell phones, nobody sells more tablets, nobody sells more high-end consumer computers. Although I do think Apple's lawyers tend to go overboard, Apple is about as far away from being a patent troll as you can get.

Now show me Dell suing someone, that would look like pure desperation.

In case you haven't noticed, Apple is dominating by having the best product in its market. Nobody sells more high-end cell phones, nobody sells more tablets, nobody sells more high-end consumer computers.

Rolls Royce makes arguably the best product in their market. How many they sell doesn't have anything to do with the quality of what they make, or how many lawyers they employ or how many patents they control.

I guess inside the "ecosystem", "quality" is whatever Apple is doing the best at today.

I should have stated that as nobody's making more money than Apple doing these things. Apple is raking in profit hand over fist off of producing highly competitive and profitable products. Therefore, there's no way Apple is suing out of the same desperation than an SCO, Dell or other company on the decline would do.

"quality" is whatever Apple is doing the best at today.

No, Apple tends to actually have the highest quality products. Apple also consistently rates highest for consumer satisfaction and support. So Apple isn't one of these companies making cheap products on a slim margin, suing because they need to pad the balance books or slow down the competition so they can catch up.

“Were” going up? Stock fluctuates of course, but have you seen the latest iPad numbers? There is the possibility of an iPhone slow down due to the imminent release of the next generation in a month or so, and because of that sales tend to be cyclic, a dip before release, a boom afterwards.

No, I haven't seen the latest iPad numbers. Somehow I'm just not buying into this whole line of thinking that having caught a bubble in a computerized pocket toys market means Apple is and forever will be the Big Dog in the computer industry, and everyone must pay homage.

I guess inside the "ecosystem", "quality" is whatever Apple is doing the best at today.

The simplest definition of "quality" is whatever the public is willing to pay the most for. Apple doesn't sell $300 laptops, but it makes more money selling laptops than anyone else does - meaning either that they sell devices on the basis of glitz, or that they sell devices which perform well and remain valuable when used. I didn't buy an expensive model of Mac, but years after I bought it, PC users who see it are struck by it.

Anybody who tries just glitz without underlying value fails. Remember most PC users trying to pimp-up their PCs with plastic in the face of Apple's design successes? Remember Apple's own Mac Cube? It was very nice and glitzy, but it cost far more than equivalent Mac hardware. Not many people have that much money to shell out for looks.

Remember Apple's own Mac Cube? It was very nice and glitzy, but it cost far more than equivalent Mac hardware.

I look at the G4 Cube as a step on the way to the Mac Mini. For years, a lot of folks were clamoring for a "headless iMac," so they could save some money by using the monitor they already had. The Cube wasn't it. The Mini was.

The Cube, the 20th Anniversary Mac, and (I would argue) the first iteration of the MacBook Air were what Apple-bashers claim all Macs are -- machines that charged a hefty premium for aesthetics. There is a limited market for such machines. On the other hand, machines with smart, functional, and yes, aesthetically appealing design, like the iMac, the MacBook Pro, and the current-generation MacBook Air, iPhone and iPad sell quite well.

Somehow I'm just not buying into this whole line of thinking that having caught a bubble in a computerized pocket toys market means Apple is and forever will be the Big Dog in the computer industry

First, nobody remains the big dog forever. Second, that's one hell of a ten-year bubble. How long does a bubble have to last before it simply becomes the state of things? Apple has had to face fierce competition to every single product by the biggest players in industry for a decade, and is still having success.

I bought an original IBM PC. It came with complete electronic schematics and complete BIOS source code listing. Small wonder IBM lost all control.

I bought an original Apple II, one of the first ones. Same thing, Apple published the schematics and BIOS code. Soon there were hundreds of cheap clones and Apple lost control. Apple learned their lesson with subsequent inventions (except for handing over the Mac GUI code to Microsoft, which they cloned as Windows).

I remember when the Russians announced their first home-developed personal computer at some world electronics exhibition, touted as totally designed by Russians. Except when westerners took a peek at the BIOS, it was identical to the Apple code right down to the embedded Apple copyright notices.

I must say that I have been very happy with my iPhone and my iPad2. However, I might not have been as happy with both if I had to pay for them out of my pocket - my employer paid.

You've heard of the "blue screen of death" for MS. Well, Apple iDads have the equivalent; the "cracked screen" of "you're-gonna-pay-an-assload" to repair/replace. In both cases, my employer paid for replacement/repair. I'd have given up both if I would have to have paid.

The Cube, the 20th Anniversary Mac, and (I would argue) the first iteration of the MacBook Air were what Apple-bashers claim all Macs are -- machines that charged a hefty premium for aesthetics.

Agree, except part of the Air's aesthetics was its extreme portability, an actually useful feature. The problem was then it was far too slow to be even a main road warrior machine. But it was a technological feat just to get it that small in the first place, much less worry about performance.

In fact, the Cube even had some high technology behind the looks. The kind of molding technology to make that case was invented by Apple, and the system was carefully designed to allow chimney cooling without fans. It's not like the standard, stick a fancy plastic faceplate on a box and call it "design."

And, yes, the 20th Anniversary Mac was just for show, a "here's what we can do" vision thing. I was surprised Apple didn't make it a limited edition in the first place.

Anybody who tries just glitz without underlying value fails. Remember most PC users trying to pimp-up their PCs with plastic in the face of Apple's design successes? Remember Apple's own Mac Cube? It was very nice and glitzy, but it cost far more than equivalent Mac hardware. Not many people have that much money to shell out for looks.

I suspect that may also be somewhat responsible for the demise of the XServe. Nobody wants to pay a premium for a glitzy machine that spends it's life in a dark room.

I suspect that may also be somewhat responsible for the demise of the XServe. Nobody wants to pay a premium for a glitzy machine that spends it's life in a dark room.

The XServe got rave reviews from admins. It was very well designed, easy to do anything without tools (that wasn't as common when the XServe was introduced). And compared to Windows servers, the licensing made them much less expensive.

You keep your server room dark when you're in there? Do you keep night vision goggles in the man trap? I like walking into the server room and seeing all those nice Sun systems racked up, or the cool looks of the EMC and NetApp racks, rather than the ugly hodgepodge of the x86 server racks. It makes the server room look neater, and I'm a server neat freak (channel and label that cabling!). I'm not alone in this.

The admins aren't paying for them. If they were all that, why did the discontinue them and stop renewing service contracts?

Apple is moving away from high-powered local servers and into providing cloud services. Note the recent billions of dollars of investment in the infrastructure to support them. The XServe is simply not on the strategic roadmap, not worth the R&D and support investment for the small role Apple sees it playing. Whether this approach is a good one is debatable.

There is rumor that for those people who absolutely have to have a rack-mounted Mac, the next Mac Pro may be rackable.

Agree, except part of the Air's aesthetics was its extreme portability, an actually useful feature. The problem was then it was far too slow to be even a main road warrior machine. But it was a technological feat just to get it that small in the first place, much less worry about performance.

I have to disagree with your slowness characterization of the Macbook Air. When the Macbook Air came out on January 15, 2008, at 2.9 pounds and .76 inch thick, it was far faster than any other sub-notebook on the market at 1.6GHz... and it would run Windows XP, Vista, and later Windows 7. The offerings from the other companies at the time in the same class were generally 1Ghz or slower. Although not a speed demon, with 667MHz DDR2 RAM, and a Intel P7500 Core 2 Duo processor, it easily competed with main stream notebook computers.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.